Feb 27, 2015 | News
The Nepali government must fully implement yesterday’s decision of the Supreme Court rejecting the possibility of amnesties for perpetrators of serious human rights abuses during the country’s civil war, said today the ICJ.
The decision, by a three-person special constitutional bench, composed of Justice Kalyan Shrestha, Justice Baidhya Nath Upadhyay and Justice Cholendra Shumsher JB Rana, struck down the amnesty provision of the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Act 2014 (TRC Act) promulgated last May 2014.
The Court also ruled that only the judiciary, and not the Commissions established by the TRC Act, can determine the criminality of any violations committed in the context of the country’s decade-long conflict.
“Nepal’s Supreme Court has once again firmly reasserted the right of the victims of human rights violations to seek justice,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “This bold and principled decision should finally end the cynical attempts by politicians from all Nepal’s major parties, as well as the military, to legislate impunity and shield themselves from accountability.”
The decision distinguished between the jurisdiction of the courts and the criminal justice system, and the non-judicial reconciliation and truth-seeking mechanisms established by the TRC Act.
In the months before the decision, the government had essentially frozen the prosecution of claims already before various courts, and had blocked the filing of First Information Reports (FIRs) by victims trying to lodge new complaints.
“Now, the government must not only remove obstacles to these cases, it must commit itself to prosecuting such claims,” Zarifi added. “The Government must immediately take all necessary steps to implement the court ruling including to ensure criminal investigation of FIRs, and address the concerns raised by the victims on the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearance.”
This is the second time that the Nepali Supreme Court has rejected the amnesty scheme introduced by the Nepali government.
On 2 January 2014, the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional the Ordinance on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC Ordinance).
However, the Government effectively ignored the Court order and introduced a slightly modified version of the 2013 Ordinance replicating almost all of the provisions of the TRC Ordinance, including many of its problematic aspects, such as the ‘amnesty’ provision.
“The Government, with the help of the international community, must now dedicate itself to meeting the promise of the political parties to provide justice, truth and reparations to the victims and survivors of the conflict,” said Zarifi. “Only doing so will help end the country’s cycle of impunity.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Dec 19, 2014 | News
The Nepal government should ensure more victim participation and improve transparency when selecting candidates for two independent commissions on the country’s decade-long conflict, the ICJ and other groups said today.
The ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and five local human rights and conflict-era victims groups sent an open letter to Prime Minister Sushil Koirala.
The groups, reiterating concerns about the act, said Koirala should narrow the scope of the amnesty powers vested in the commissions and bring them in line with international standards.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission on Enforced Disappearances are being established under a 2014 law, the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Act, 2071 (TRC Act).
“A consultative and transparent process for selecting commissioners is critical if the commissions are going to win the trust of conflict-era survivors as well as local and international observers,” the rights groups said in their letter. “The TRC Act is fundamentally flawed, and the government should take these steps to ensure that this important exercise in transitional justice remedies the flaws.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Nepal-TRCCommission-Advocay-Open Letter-2014-ENG (full text in PDF)
Oct 3, 2013 | News
Following Pakistan’s reinstation of its moratorium on the death penalty, the ICJ calls on the Government to make the moratorium permanent and to move to abolish the death penalty in national law.
“This is a step forward for human rights in Pakistan,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director. “It brings Pakistan closer to the regional and worldwide trend towards abolishment of the death penalty.”
Pakistan has had a moratorium on the death penalty in place since June 2008, with only the exception of Muhammad Hussain’s execution in November 2012 following a court martial.
The newly elected Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) Government decided not to renew the moratorium when it expired in June 2013.
The ICJ and other human rights groups denounced the move and urged Pakistan to immediately adopt a moratorium on the death penalty, prompting the Government to reconsider its decision.
According to the Interior Ministry spokesperson, today’s decision was taken to meet Pakistan’s international human rights obligations.
Pakistani Taliban also warned the Government that they would launch retaliatory attacks if any of their members were executed.
“This brave move by the government should be the first step toward reestablishing the rule of law and providing accountability in Pakistan,” Zarifi added. “The Government should now ensure that members of armed groups like the Taliban who have carried out serious human rights abuses like extrajudicial executions and attacks on civilians are held to account.”
The ICJ considers the death penalty in all cases to constitute a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Sep 19, 2013
The ICJ today called on Colombia to ensure accountability at the national and international levels through effective implementation of UPR recommendations and by reconsidering its rejection of other UPR recommendations.
In an Interactive Dialogue on the adoption of the second cycle Universal Periodic Review of Colombia (Item 6 of the Human Rights Council’s agenda), the ICJ stressed the importance for Colombia to implement in an effective manner recommendations accepted by it and called on Colombia to reconsider its rejection of recommendations for the Government to ratify international human rights treaties key to ensuring accountability and access to justice.
The Interactive Dialogue took place during the 24th regular session of the Human Rights Council (9 to 27 September 2013).
Colombia-HRC24-Item6-OralStatement-LegalSubmission-2013 (download full statement in PDF)
ICJ submission and advocacy on the Universal Periodic Review of Colombia
Sep 12, 2013 | News
Yesterday, during the 24th session of the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ and TRIAL (Swiss Association against Impunity) jointly held a parallel event on promoting accountability through human rights mechanisms in Geneva.
The event was co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions of Switzerland, Estonia and Costa Rica to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
A corresponding report produced by ICJ and TRIAL was also launched at this event in two versions, one aimed at civil society and another aimed at States.
Panellists at this event included Ian Seiderman of the ICJ, Gabriella Citroni of TRIAL and Theo van Boven, former Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and ICJ Honorary Commissioner.
Mona Rishmawi of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) chaired the event.
The main topic of this event was the ICJ-TRIAL report, which reviews the legal framework for promoting accountability and suggests possible action by civil society and States to engage with the human rights mechanisms in Geneva to better promote and achieve accountability for human rights violations.
The role of national mechanisms, such as national human rights institutions, working in cooperation with the UN mechanisms was also highlighted.
The report focuses specifically on the Human Rights Council and its subsidiary bodies, such as the Universal Periodic Review and the special procedures mechanisms.
OHCHR’s role was further emphasised in regards to sharing best practices as well as ensuring follow-up to issues of accountability as they come to the attention to the UN.
